Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 4.djvu/293

LAND TRANSFER REFORM. 277 deed, but printed forms of contract are provided at the Reg- istry Office and at the stationers' shops. These instruments when executed are valid as agreements between the parties, and are the authority to the Registrar to enter the memorial on the Register; and the entry by him on the folium of the Register appropriate to that lot of land in question, of the memorials of all transfers and charges so created, constitutes Registration. The like entry is also made on the certificate in the hands of the owner, and registered estates are held free of all charges and in- cumbrances whatsoever, save such as appear on the Register, and endorsed on such certificate. This certificate is conclusive evi- dence of title. This duplicate method of conveyancing by Registration of Title is admirably simple and inexpensive. Each separate estate is represented by only one instrument in the hands of the registered owner, and it discloses every incumbrance which it is necessary for any one dealing with him to know. The duplicate being filed in the Registry Office, searches are needless except for the purpose of ascertaining if any caveats have been filed since its date. This is a trifling matter and causes no delay. It is not uncommon for a mortgage to be placed on an estate in the space of an hour at a cost of only a few shillings. Moreover, this duplicate system precludes any possibility of loss in the event of a fire. It is a great mistake to suppose that the extraordinary success which has attended the introduction of this system into the Aus- tralian Colonies is due to the fact that Australia is a new country, and that therefore Registration of Title is not equally suited to the needs of older communities. On the contrary, its originator always claimed that, so far from being an advantage, it was a dis- tinct disadvantage that he was compelled to try it first in Australia. And the reason is obvious. In an old country the land is improved, monuments abound and are fixed and certain, possession undis- puted, and titles easily proved. Moreover, in Australia, at the time of the passage of the Act, so far from its being true that the land had recently come directly from the Crown, a large part of it had been in private ownership for sixty years or more, and during that time had been subjected to all the vicissitudes of unskilful conveyancing and presented all the difficulties which usually result from such a condition of affairs. And further, so far from its being an advantage that there was a survey of the Crown Lands